When I ponder over the tragic events that have occurred in Kashmir during the last few days, the following beautiful verse of Lal Ded, the famous 14 century Kashmiri poetess, comes to my mind: Having cut the hide, you have pegged down yourself/what kind of seed had you sown to expect an abundant harvest?

Clearly, the turmoil in the Valley is the outcome of the poisonous seeds that were planted in the Kashmiri psyche long ago. What is worse, these seeds have been allowed, over the years, to be abundantly fertilised.And tragically, those whose obligation it was to prevent it, showed little awareness of the elementary lesson of history:'To compromise with evil is only to rear up greater evil'. Let me elaborate.

On October 2, 1988, the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, his statue was to be installed in the new high court complex in Srinagar and the chief justice of India was to inaugurate it. But a few anti-India lawyers objected and threatened to disrupt the function. The chief minister gave in to their bullying tactics and the function was cancelled.

What were the implications of this incident? A secular Kashmir could not hold on to its secular principles. And who spearheaded the move against the installation? It was none other than an active member of the National Conference, who was later given a ticket for the Srinagar Lok Sabha seat in 1989.

At that time, there was a National Conference(F)-Congress(I) ministry in office. Such was its lack of adherence to principles that not even a little finger was raised when the function was cancelled. The bully's appetite could not have been whetted better. The troublemakers couldn't have perceived a more casual adversary. Was it not natural for them to nurture higher ambitions and think that spectacular results could be achieved by deploying a more aggressive and threatening strategy?

A few members of the civil services floated a cooperative society with the objective of meeting their bona fide requirements of housing. The society was registered in 1985 under the name of 'Rajtarangini'. A fierce controversy ensued primarily on the ground that non-state subjects could not acquire residential plots even as members of a housing society. Some prominent members of the National Conference raised the issue in the assembly in 1988 and severely criticised the registration of the society. This was done despite the fact that the officers had to render life-long service in the state and their number was only 32. The members of the IAS and IPS were described as agents of colonial power. A conspiracy to upset the balance of population was alleged. The officers, in sheer disgust, dissolved the society. No one got any land. What was disconcerting was the fact that there was no technical fault in the registration, but the attitude displayed against the Union and its representatives and the notions that were instilled in the minds of Kashmiris.

There has always been a strong tendency on the part of Kashmiri politicians to project themselves as heroes fighting the 'imperialists'. There was so much controversy around the case thanks to the National Conference leaders that it was lapped up by the Pakistani media. One leading journalist commented: "This smacked of the action of the Jews who settled in Palestine as 'uprooted refugees' and ultimately drove out the Arabs from their own lands".

Just imagine a housing society of 32 officers raising a spectre of colonisation of Kashmir which had a population of eight million at that time. But who were responsible for this venomous propaganda? None but the leaders of National Conference, the senior coalition partner in the state and and an ally of the ruling party at the Centre.

The Centre enacted the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. It was made applicable to all the states of the Union except J&K. Because of Article 370, the concurrence of the state government was needed for the extension of this law to the state. But the same was not accorded. Why? Because J&K is different; its personality and identity is different. What an argument for not having a law which aimed at the prevention of misuse of religious premises for political purposes.

Nowhere was this law more needed than in J&K. Nowhere were the seeds of fanaticism and fundamentalism sown more assiduously than from the pulpits of mosques here. Nowhere was it preached more regularly than here that Indian democracy was unIslamic. And yet, neither the state nor the Centre took the matter seriously.What was more intriguing was that the law, which was considered good for about 130 million Muslims in other parts of India, was not considered good for 5 million Muslims in Kashmir.

There has been a general tendency to always adopt a short-term approach and hope that the ills would disappear. But this is not to be. The 'spirit of Munich' has invariably trapped the leadership in a whirlpool of moral and political chaos, as is being seen in the Valley these days.

Unless New Delhi develops a strong will to address the issues of Kashmir and shows inflexible commitment to secularism and to the need for building a cohesive nation, the bitter harvest would continue to sprout from time to time and cause suffering. The solution to the present-day crisis does not lie in removing Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, as is being advocated in certain quarters, but in replacing the prevailing culture of compromise and confusion with the culture of commitment and clarity.The current approach, hesitant and hollow as it is, must end; or else a bigger disaster would strike not just the Valley but also the nation.

Jagmohanwas Governor of Jammu & Kashmir from 1984 to 1989 and is a former Union minister. The views expressed by the author are personal

Former Sarsanghchalak of RSS KC Sudarshan said, "Today we all accuse Mohammad Ali Jinnah of dividing India into Hindustan and Pakistan, all the Indians view him as villain, but if I say that for the division of our country Mahatma Gandhi was also so much guilty as much as Jinnah was then, every person present here would not be surprised."

Sudarshan was speaking as the main speaker at the Muqabala-e-Islam-e-eMaloomat programmed organised by the Muslim Rashtriya manch in Gwalior on Saturday.

Sudarshan further said that father of the nation Mahtma Gandhi who played important role in the freedom struggle committed some mistakes at that time due to which seed of the partition germinated in the mind of Jinnah. The main mistake of Gandhiji was to support Khilafat movement conducted by the Muslims of India for reckoning the Shah of Turkey after he was dethroned. Another mistake of Mahatma Gandhi was to address Jinnah as a Muslim leader.

In 1927 Jinnah went to Britian leaving the Congress and the country. After 10 years when he returned to India he was a diehard Muslim and started demanding Pakistan in 1940.

"Had Gandhiji not committed these mistakes, Pakistan and Bharat were united Country as Bharat", the head of Rashtriya Muslim Manch, Gwalior advocate Siraz Qureshi said, adding that when the rulers of India and Pakistan want to create animosity between Hindus and Muslims of the country such programmers were like a blessing in which we can over come difficulties under the guidance of a great person like Sudarshan.

Four years ago, I was flying from JFK NY Airport to SFO to attend a meeting at Monterey , CA An American girl was sitting on the right side, near window seat. It indeed was a long journey - it would take nearly seven hours.

I was surprised to see the young girl reading a Bible unusual of young Americans. After some time she smiled and we had few acquaintances talk.I told her that I am from India Then suddenly the girl asked: 'What's your faith?' 'What?' I didn't understand the question. 'I mean, what's your religion? Are you a Christian? Or a Muslim?' 'No!' I replied, 'I am neither Christian nor Muslim'. Apparently she appeared shocked to listen to that. 'Then who are you?' 'I am a Hindu', I said. She looked at me as if she was seeing a caged animal. She could not understand what I was talking about. A common man in Europe or US knows about Christianity and Islam, as they are the leading religions of the world today. But a Hindu, what? I explained to her - I am born to a Hindu father and Hindu mother. Therefore, I am a Hindu by birth. 'Who is your prophet?' she asked.. 'We don't have a prophet,' I replied. 'What's your Holy Book?' 'We don't have a single Holy Book, but we have hundreds and thousands of philosophical and sacred scriptures,' I replied. 'Oh, come on at least tell me who is your God?' 'What do you mean by that?' 'Like we have Jesus and Muslims have Allah - don't you have a God?' I thought for a moment. Muslims and Christians believe one God (Male God) who created the world and takes an interest in the humans who inhabit it. Her mind is conditioned with that kind of belief. According to her (or anybody who doesn't know about Hinduism), a religion needs to have one Prophet, one Holy book and one God. The mind is so conditioned and rigidly narrowed down to such a notion that anything else is not acceptable. I understood her perception and concept about faith. You can't compare Hinduism with any of the present leading religions where you have to believe in one concept of god. I tried to explain to her: 'You can believe in one god and he can be a Hindu. You may believe in multiple deities and still you can be a Hindu. What's more - you may not believe in god at all, still you can be a Hindu. An atheist can also be a Hindu.' This sounded very crazy to her. She couldn't imagine a religion so unorganized, still surviving for thousands of years, even after onslaught from foreign forces.. 'I don't understand but it seems very interesting. Are you religious?'
What can I tell to this American girl? I said: 'I do not go to temple regularly. I do not make any regular rituals. I have learned some of the rituals in my younger days. I still enjoy doing it sometimes..' 'Enjoy? Are you not afraid of God?' 'God is a friend. No- I am not afraid of God. Nobody has made any compulsions on me to perform these rituals regularly.' She thought for a while and then asked: 'Have you ever thought of converting to any other religion?' 'Why should I? Even if I challenge some of the rituals and faith in Hinduism, nobody can convert me from Hinduism. Because, being a Hindu allows me to think independently and objectively, without conditioning. I remain as a Hindu never by force, but choice.' I told her that Hinduism is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices. It is not a religionlike Christianity or Islam because it is not founded by any one person or does not have an organized controlling body like the Church or the Order, I added. There is no institution or authority.. 'So, you don't believe in God?' she wanted everything in black and white. 'I didn't say that. I do not discard the divine reality. Our scripture, or Sruthis or Smrithis - Vedas and Upanishads or the Gita - say God might be there or he might not be there. But we pray to that supreme abstract authority (Para Brahma) that is the creator of this universe.' 'Why can't you believe in one personal God?' 'We have a concept - abstract - not a personal god. The concept or notion of a personal God, hiding behind the clouds of secrecy, telling us irrational stories through few men whom he sends as messengers, demanding us to worship him or punish us, does not make sense. I don't think that God is as silly as an autocratic emperor who wants others to respect him or fear him.' I told her that such notions are just fancies of less educated human imagination and fallacies, adding that generally ethnic religious practitioners in Hinduism believe in personal gods. The entry level Hinduism has over-whelming superstitions too. The philosophical side of Hinduism negates all superstitions. 'Good that you agree God might exist. You told that you pray. What is your prayer then?' 'Loka Samastha Sukino Bhavantu. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,' 'Funny,' she laughed, 'What does it mean?' 'May all the beings in all the worlds be happy. Om Peace, Peace, Peace.' 'Hmm ..very interesting. I want to learn more about this religion. It is so democratic, broad-minded and free' she exclaimed. 'The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual and by the individual with its roots in the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita. It is all about an individual approaching a personal God in an individual way according to his temperament and inner evolution - it is as simple as that.' 'How does anybody convert to Hinduism?' 'Nobody can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices. Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because there is no single authority or organization either to accept it or to reject it or to oppose it on behalf of Hinduism.' I told her - if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions; don't go from one cult to another or from one guru to the next. For a real seeker, I told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it says ' Kingdom of God is within you.' I reminded her of Christ's teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you can find the meaning of life. Loving each and every creation of the God is absolute and real. 'Isavasyam idam sarvam' Isam (the God) is present (inhabits) here everywhere - nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present everywhere. Respect every living being and non-living things as God. That's what Hinduism teaches you. Hinduism is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith. It is based on the practice of Dharma, the code of life. The most important aspect of Hinduism is being truthful to oneself. Hinduism has no monopoly on ideas.- It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God (not a personal one) expressed in different forms. For them, God is timeless and formless entity. Ancestors of today's Hindus believe in eternal truths and cosmic laws and these truths are opened to anyone who seeks them. But there is a section of Hindus who are either superstitious or turned fanatic to make this an organized religion like others. The British coin the word 'Hindu' and considered it as a religion. I said: 'Religions have become an MLM (multi-level- marketing) industry that has been trying to expand the market share by conversion. The biggest business in today's world is Spirituality. Hinduism is no exception' I am a Hindu primarily because it professes Non-violence - 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharma' - Non violence is the highest duty. I am a Hindu because it doesn't conditions my mind with any faith system.
A man/ woman who change 's his/her birth religion to another religion is a fake and does not value his/her morals, culture and values in life. Hinduism was the first religion originated. Be proud of your religion and be proud of who you are.
Om Namo shivayah !!!!

Monday, August 16, 2010

In future do not pay any heed to what people say either for or against you or me. Work on, be lions; and the Lord will bless you. I shall work incessantly until I die, and even after death I shall work for the good of the world. Truth is infinitely more weighty than untruth; so is goodness. If you possess these, they will make their way by sheer gravity.

Enough of books and theories. It is the life that is the highest and the only way to stir the hearts of people; it carries the personal magnetism. . . . The Lord is giving me a deeper and deeper insight every day. Work, work, work. . . . Truce to foolish talk; talk of the Lord. Life is too short to be spent in talking about frauds and cranks

You must always remember that every nation must save itself; so must every man; do not look to others for help. Through hard work here, I shall be able now and then to send you a little money for your work; but that is all. If you have to look forward to that, better stop work. Know also that this is a grand field for my ideas, and that I do not care whether they are Hindus or Mohammedans or Christians, but those that love the Lord will always command my service.-Swami Vivekananda.

This was in the beginning of July. I was coming out of the mosque afteroffering the namaz of Isha (the last prayer of the day) when I saw someyouth distributing pamphlets at both the doors of the mosque. I wastaken aback at the title of the pamphlet and read the whole textstanding there. In the pamphlet the Muslims were told that the day wasnot too far when the whole world would be under their rule and toachieve that they should establish Khilafat and that only Khilafat wasthe real Islamic form of government. In the pamphlet, the Muslims ofJamia Nagar were appealed to attend a meeting at the Bade Barat Ghar inBatla House on July 11, 2010 in connection with the efforts to establishKhilafat.

Therefore, I also arrived at the place on the scheduled time. First ofall, the audience were shown some video pictures. The pictures ofIndonesia, Singapore, Turkey, Pakistan, Britain and the US apart fromvarious European countries were shown. The pictures showed Muslimsprotesting with placards. A scroll was also running on the screen whichsaid, "See, the Muslims the world over are demanding Khilafat(caliphate) and we should also be prepared for it."

After that some speakers delivered their speeches. They said that theestablishment of Islamic rule under Khilafat was inevitable and livingunder a non-Khilafat rule was a sin. As for jihad, it was said thatjihad was mandatory and only a caliph elected by the Muslims can orderit and that the violence and bloodshed unleashed nowadays was not jihad.

The most important fact about the meeting was that no important figureof the neighbourhood was associated with it. Even the convenor of themeeting and the two speakers seated on the stage were unknown people.Though the convenor tried his best to conceal his identity, on someone'senquiry he said that his name was Abdur Rasheed, was a lawyer byprofession and hailed from Gujarat.

The participants of this secret meeting wondered what prompted them tocome from a faraway place to convene a meeting here. Who are backingthem and what are their plans? Their sincerity and honesty can be gaugedby the fact that the pictures purportedly of the Khilafat movement invarious countries they showed were a bundle of lies because theybelonged to the time when blasphemous cartoons were published in Denmarkwhich had caused deep anxiety among the Muslims. Nevertheless, theycould not be termed as the movement for the establishment of Khilafat asthey were part of peaceful protests of the Muslims the world overagainst the insult to the Prophet (PBUH).

I was all the more surprised to realise that the person who wasprovoking the Muslims against the democratic government and democraticconstitution terming it as 'satanic' and evil was himself a lawyer inthe Indian judiciary and earning his bread and butter through the lawsformed by the very constitution he branded un-Islamic. Could there be abigger paradox than that?

The attempts to mobilise Muslim youth by raising deceitful slogans havebeen made in the past as well that always led to destruction. The fateof the Jamat Islami of Pakistan, Ikhwanul Muslimeen of Egypt and theTaliban of Afghanistan is there for all to see. In our country too, somegullible elements earned name and fame by raising similar slogans,constituted Muslim Parliament through which they earned fame and wealthbut at the same time played an important role in destroying the nation'sunity and integrity. However, the Muslims of the country have becomeaware of their reality which is why no Muslim religious scholar of thecountry has extended his support to the people pushing for Khilafat orIslamic rule. No important personality of Batla House was seen in themeeting. I strongly believe that the Muslims of this country will notfall into the trap of these people any more. But the people who convenethese meetings can, however, strengthen communal forces like SanghParivar and its affiliates. At a time when the whole country is peacefuland the involvement of Sangh Parivar is becoming more evident by theday, people raising slogans of Khilafat or Islamic state can onlyinstill new life into the corpses of these outfits.

My humble advice to these people is that in this country where Hindus,Muslims, Sikhs and Christians live harmoniously together, they shouldnot indulge in inflammatory and provocative religious sloganeering as itwill not work in this country that belongs to Indians associated withdifferent religions and cultures. They should go to Pakistan orAfghanistan and live with people establishing Khilafat through theirso-called jihad and exploding bombs day in and day out in the name ofjihad. Their wish of martyrdom and meeting the houris can be fulfilledsooner than later there.

It is strange that these elements want Khilafat for the Muslims in acountry where they constitute 20 per cent of the population and arebetter off educationally and religiously than their coreligionists inPakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and Arab. They should go to SaudiArabia and talk about Khilafat, then only they will realise what itmeans speaking against the rule of law and what fate awaits them. It isan irony that Abu Hamza of Egypt leaves his own country to become animam in a mosque in a foreign country and openly supports Osama binLaden. Masood Azhar of Pakistan speaks of jihad against India andAmerica, brainwashes Muslim youth of Pakistan and sends them toAfghanistan to wage jihad against America but he himself remains inhiding in Pakistan. The peace loving citizens of Pakistan should askthese people why they do not go to the front first and meet withmartyrdom instead of sending the boys and why don't they themselves tryto meet the houris they promise the youth.

It is high time we stood up against all forms of extremism. The Muslimintellectuals and scholars should deal with the extremism growing amongthe Muslim community strictly. Simultaneously, our Hindu brethren shouldalso stand up against the Hindu extremists. We should bear this in mindthat as Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians freed the countrytogether, so we will have to wage a jihad against extremism of all huesunitedly.

Professor Niall Ferguson is a contributing editor for the Financial Times and a regular contributor to Newsweek. As a Historian and economic expert, he contributes often to television and radio shows in the U.K. and the U.S. He has authored multiple books, among them best-selling book "Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World", published in 2008. He is a Professor of History at Harvard University and Professor at Harvard Business School. He graduated from Magdalen College (Oxford University) in 1985. He was a Hanseatic Scholar in Hamburg and Berlin and a Research Fellow at Cambridge. He was then a Professor and Financial History at Oxford.

As a distinguished historian his analysis contained in the following three pieces cannot, therefore, be brushed aside:

the first, titled, "Niall Ferguson: Empires Fall Abruptly, And The American Empire Is On The Brink" by Gregory White;

the second, "Sun Could Set Suddenly on Superpower as Debt Bites" by Niall Ferguson himself; and

the third, "Niall Ferguson's guide to sovereign debt crises."

The first two articles are reproduced in full below. Also the link to the third.

Briefly, he thinks America (I do not understand why the learned professor calls America "the American Empire" when America has no empire), will collapse because of three reasons:

1) His theory, based on a historical critique of how empires fracture and fall, notes the fiscal instability of the Hapsburg Spanish, Bourbon French, and British Empire prior to their falls.

2) The size of America's debt will continue to grow, and debt servicing costs, specifically interest payments, will consume a rising proportion of tax revenue and could sqeeze the defense budget.

3) Cuts in defense spending will become inevitable and would lead to the decline of the US, a withdrawal from portions of the world, and the expansion of China in the Asia-Pacific region.

Therefore, while Professor Niall Ferguson's thesis must be carefully read, all is not lost if America starts taking the right steps NOW.

BUSINESS INSIDER MONEY GAME

Niall Ferguson: Empires Fall Abruptly, And The American Empire Is On The Brink

Gregory White | Jul. 29, 2010

Niall Ferguson, writing in The Australian, believes that the American Empire could be on the brink of extinction. His theory, based on a historical critique of how empires fracture and fall, notes the fiscal instability of the Hapsburg Spanish, Bourbon French, and British Empire prior to their falls.

Ferguson then notes that the American Empire could be next, not just because of the size of its debt, but because of the size of payments needed to service that debt. He suggests that debt servicing costs, specifically interest payments, could rise above that of defense spending within the next decade.

And that's where it gets frightening for Ferguson, who notes that those cuts in defense spending would lead to the decline of the U.S. Empire, a withdrawal from portions of the world, and the expansion of China in the Asia-Pacific region.

Further from this, its quite obvious that this could have an impact in multiple areas the U.S. currently dominates. An example would be South Asia, where India and Iran could rise to compete over dominance in Afghanistan and Pakistan. China could even play there too.

We have been raised to think of the historical process as an essentially cyclical one.

We naturally tend to assume that in our own time, too, history will move cyclically, and slowly.

Yet what if history is not cyclical and slow-moving but arhythmic, at times almost stationary, but also capable of accelerating suddenly, like a sports car? What if collapse does not arrive over a number of centuries but comes suddenly, like a thief in the night?

Great powers and empires are complex systems, which means their construction more resembles a termite hill than an Egyptian pyramid. They operate somewhere between order and disorder, on "the edge of chaos", in the phrase of the computer scientist Christopher Langton.

Such systems can appear to operate quite stably for some time; they seem to be in equilibrium but are, in fact, constantly adapting.

But there comes a moment when complex systems "go critical". A very small trigger can set off a phase transition from a benign equilibrium to a crisis.

Complex systems share certain characteristics. A small input to such a system can produce huge, often unanticipated changes, what scientists call the amplifier effect.

Empires exhibit many of the characteristics of other complex adaptive systems, including the tendency to move from stability to instability quite suddenly. But this fact is rarely recognised because of our addiction to cyclical theories of history. The Bourbon monarchy in France passed from triumph to terror with astonishing rapidity. The sun set on the British Empire almost as suddenly. The Suez crisis in 1956 proved that Britain could not act in defiance of the US in the Middle East, setting the seal on the end of empire.

What are the implications for the US today? The most obvious point is that imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises: sharp imbalances between revenues and expenditures, and the mounting cost of servicing a mountain of public debt.

Think of Spain in the 17th century: already by 1543 nearly two-thirds of ordinary revenue was going on interest on the juros, the loans by which the Habsburg monarchy financed itself.

Or think of France in the 18th century: between 1751 and 1788, the eve of Revolution, interest and amortisation payments rose from just over a quarter of tax revenue to 62 per cent.

Finally, consider Britain in the 20th century. Its real problems came after 1945, when a substantial proportion of its now immense debt burden was in foreign hands. Of the pound stg. 21 billion national debt at the end of the war, about pound stg. 3.4bn was owed to foreign creditors, equivalent to about a third of gross domestic product.

Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly indeed in Washington, as the US contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than $US1.47 trillion ($1.64 trillion), about 10 per cent of GDP, for the second year running. Since 2001, in the space of just 10 years, the federal debt in public hands has doubled as a share of GDP from 32 per cent to a projected 66 per cent next year. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest projections, the debt could rise above 90 per cent of GDP by 2020 and reach 146 per cent by 2030 and 344 per cent by 2050.

These sums may sound fantastic. But what is even more terrifying is to consider what ongoing deficit finance could mean for the burden of interest payments as a share of federal revenues.

The CBO projects net interest payments rising from 9 per cent of revenue to 20 per cent in 2020, 36 per cent in 2030, 58 per cent in 2040 and 85 per cent in 2050. As Larry Kotlikoff recently pointed out in the Financial Times, by any meaningful measure, the fiscal position of the US is at present worse than that of Greece.

For now, the world still expects the US to muddle through, eventually confronting its problems when, as Churchill famously said, all the alternatives have been exhausted. With the sovereign debt crisis in Europe combining with growing fears of a deflationary double-dip recession, bond yields are at historic lows.

There is a zero-sum game at the heart of the budgetary process: even if rates stay low, recurrent deficits and debt accumulation mean that interest payments consume a rising proportion of tax revenue. And military expenditure is the item most likely to be squeezed to compensate because, unlike mandatory entitlements (social security, Medicaid and Medicare), defence spending is discretionary.

It is, in other words, a pre-programmed reality of US fiscal policy today that the resources available to the Department of Defense will be reduced in the years to come. Indeed, by my reckoning, it is quite likely that the US could be spending more on interest payments than on defence within the next decade.

And remember: half the federal debt in public hands is in the hands of foreign creditors. Of that, a fifth (22 per cent) is held by the monetary authorities of the People's Republic of China, down from 27 per cent in July last year. It may not have escaped your notice that China now has the second-largest economy in the world and is almost certain to be the US's principal strategic rival in the 21st century, particularly in the Asia-Pacific. Quietly, discreetly, the Chinese are reducing their exposure to US Treasuries. Perhaps they have noticed what the rest of the world's investors pretend not to see: that the US is on a completely unsustainable fiscal course, with no apparent political means of self-correcting. That has profound implications not only for the US but also for all countries that have come to rely on it, directly or indirectly, for their security.

Australia's post-war foreign policy has been, in essence, to be a committed ally of the US.

But what if the sudden waning of American power that I fear brings to an abrupt end the era of US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region? Are we ready for such a dramatic change in the global balance of power?

Judging by what I have heard here since I arrived last Friday, the answer is no. Australians are simply not thinking about such things.

A favourite phrase of this great country is "No dramas". But dramas lie ahead as the nasty fiscal arithmetic of imperial decline drives yet another great power over the edge of chaos.

Malaysian woman fails to nullify conversion to Islam when 7, vows to fight for Hindu rights04/08/2010 14:17:22 KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — A Malaysian woman lost a court battle Wednesday to nullify her conversion to Islam when she was a child, but vowed to fight on to be recognized as a Hindu. The interfaith dispute could further anger non-Muslims who have long complained that their religious rights are being sidelined in Muslim-majority Malaysia, and may erode minority support for the government.Malaysia's secular High Court ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the case as Banggarma Subramaniam is a Muslim and should refer to the Islamic Shariah court, said her lawyer Gooi Hsiao Leung. Banggarma has said she and her three siblings were under the care of a government orphanage in northern Penang state when she was converted to Islam by welfare officials in 1989 when she was seven years old.She ran away when she was 16 and got married two years later in 2001 in a traditional Hindu ceremony. When she returned to the home to collect her identity card and other documents, she was given the Muslim conversion certificate which listed her name as Siti Hasnah Vanga-rama Abdullah.She has been unable to register her marriage or name her husband as the father of their two children in their birth certificates as she is listed a Muslim. Banggarma's husband must convert to Islam to legally wed her as marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims is not allowed in the country.Banggarma said she was disappointed with the court ruling and planned to take the case to the Appeals Court."Why must I be forced to accept Islam?" Banggarma said. "I was born an Indian, a Hindu and I remain so until I die. They have no rights over me."Read Full Report at http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hs4893PMIxdfZaSmLpXlq_tn1dPw

Who owns God?

Ramdas Lamb

Washington PostAugust 6, 2010

Author Anne Rice said last week that she was 'quitting Christianity:' The once-lapsed Catholic wrote that she was could no longer accept her religion's teachings on homosexuality, feminism, politics and birth control.

"In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian," Rice announced on her facebook page.

Can you leave religion and keep Christ? Can you be spiritual without being religious?

Does Christianity own Jesus? Does one need to follow a particular sectarian belief system to have a relationship with the divine? When I attended Catholic school as a youth, the answer to both questions was obvious and unquestionable in the minds of the nuns who taught us: The Church has exclusive rights to both Jesus and God, and only makes them available to the select few of its membership. All others, as well as anyone who disagrees with the Church's views of reality, are condemned to spend an eternity in hell.

As I went from my adolescent to my teen years, I and many others like me began to have doubts. Can a supposedly all compassionate and all forgiving divinity only like one type of human and have created a place of eternal damnation for those who are different? The more I thought about the issue, the more I came to believe that such a divinity could not be as narrow minded as the Church claimed, and its version of hell could not have been created by an all compassionate and forgiving God. Either an all powerful and all loving deity exists or eternal damnation exists. One or the other had to be false ...so I gave up a belief in eternal damnation. Interestingly, once I did, the fear of it that had kept me Christian faded away, and I no longer saw a reason to remain within its narrow confines. Like Anne Rice, I simply and happily walked out the door.

This fear of damnation, coupled with claims of exclusive control over who goes to heaven, has kept millions of Christians and Muslims tied to narrow sectarian beliefs for centuries. In short, fear has been a tool of both traditions to maintain membership. An added element of fear within Islam is that orthodox Muslim law dictates the murder of any member who rejects the belief system for another one. This law is in practice in at least a half dozen Muslim countries (fundamentalist cleric Zakir Naik's justification for it can be seen on Youtube). There are Muslims in the U.S. that would like to see it become law here as well.

Once I left Christianity, I found it was still possible to have a relationship with both God and Jesus in my own mind, and church doctrine and belief no longer limited its form. The term "spiritual" was not within my framework of thinking at the time, but the way it is used today essentially describes the kind of relationship I was seeking at that time. In the Christian and Muslim worlds, being "spiritual" is not enough. Being a good, decent, loving human being is not good enough. In most denominations of both religions, one must commit to a preconceived set of beliefs within a narrow sectarian framework or damnation is one's fate. This emphasis on external labels and narrow beliefs over goodness and decency are among the reasons there are so many either lapsed or ex-Christians in the west today.

Freed from the fetters of Christianity, my own personal search took me to India, where I became a Hindu monk. I did so not out of a need to "belong" to a religion or denomination but out of a desire to find answers to questions about life that I had been asking since I was a child. As a Christian, the Church had not provided answers that seemed either logical or consistent with the way I had come to understand divinity.

Significantly, unlike my Christian teachers my Hindu teachers did not tell me what I had to believe or what sectarian label I had to wear. Instead, they taught me various religious practices that would help me to focus on finding the answers within. Hinduism, for the vast majority of its members, has little to do with adherence to a particular set of beliefs, but has much more to do with how to live one's life within a moral and ethical framework. In addition, most Hindus do not feel the need to "belong" to a particular denomination, nor do they feel confined by their Hindu identity. That is why they can freely attend a Christian Church, pray at Buddhist or Jain temple, or join in at a Sikh Gurudwara. To Hindus, a house of God is a house of God irrespective of the name on the building or the particular method of worship inside.

Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu monk and teacher who visited the U.S. at the end of the nineteenth century once suggested that It is good to be born into a religion and die out of it. He was referring to the benefits of being raised with the values that most religions teach but also the importance of moving beyond sectarian identity to free one's spirit to experience an unfettered divinity. Religion and religions have value and teach values, but narrow mindedness and exclusiveness can and do serve as obstacles that block the ability to have a broader vision of the world and of the divine. After all, nearly all religions describe the divine as being beyond the limits and human understanding. They say that no human can know the will of God, yet there are those that then claim God only likes those who believe like they do, only those who follow their narrow thinking? Christians claim the Bible gives them that right and Muslims say the same about the Quran. How can any text written by a human, or any religion for that matter, actually know the likes and dislikes of a divinity that is beyond the human ability to understand? Have any of them ever stopped to consider that maybe God has more tolerance than they do for all the loving and decent people in Her creation whose beliefs happen to vary from theirs?